DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Genus 1, Species II and Genus II, Species III in the reply filed on 29 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination would not impose a serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because having to review all the species of genus II creates an examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said corner bead". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 10,047,524 to Smythe.
Regarding claim 8, Smythe teaches in Figure 4, a composite [plastic (Column 3, Line 54)] corner flashing strip [drywall corner trim (Column 1, Lines 22-23)] for finishing a wallboard corner joint (Column 1, Lines 22-24), comprising: a plastic (Column 3, Line 54) body (1) [core (Column 3, Line 53)] including first and second flanges (7) (Column 3, Line 56), each flange (7) extending away from a recess (26, Fig 9) [groove (Column 6, Lines 39-40)] of the plastic body (1), the first and second flanges (7) having a free edge [as seen], a recess edge [as seen] and a plurality of perforations (8) (Column 3, Line 61); and a web of face paper (6) (Column 3, Lines 59-60) at least partially covering the body (1).
Regarding claim 9, Smythe teaches in Figure 9, the recess (26) defines a folding axis [hinge (Column 6, Line 40)] of the plastic body (1), the plastic body (1) being configured for being bendable (Column 6, Lines 39-41) about the longitudinal axis to a 90-degree angle [corner (Column 6, Line 41)] without relaxing back to an initial flat position [all the Figures show it in the bent configuration].
Regarding claim 11, Smythe teaches in Figure 9, the recess (26) in V-shaped, such that a thickness of the plastic body (1) is smallest at a bottom of the V-shape.
Regarding claim 14, Smythe teaches in Figure 2, the perforations (8) are circular in shape and extend through the plastic body (1).
Regarding claim 17, Smythe teaches the plastic is impact resistant (Column 4, Lines 66-67) thus being reversibly deformable.
Regarding claim 19, Smythe teaches in Figure 4, the face paper (6) has a free end (10) (Column 4, Lines 50-52) extending past the free edges of the flanges (7).
Regarding claim 20, Smythe teaches in Figure 2, the plastic body (1) is provided in sheet form [rectangular in shape].
Claims 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication # 2006/0059809 to Smythe Jr.
Regarding claim 8, Smythe Jr teaches in Figures 1 and 4A, a composite [plastic (Paragraph 0008)] corner flashing strip [boxable bead (Paragraph 0025)] for finishing a wallboard corner joint (Paragraph 0027), comprising: a plastic (Paragraph 0008) body (14) [nose (Paragraph 0025)] including first and second flanges (1) (Paragraph 0025), each flange (1) extending away from a recess (12) [groove (Paragraph 0031)] of the plastic body (14), the first and second flanges (1) having a free edge [as seen], a recess edge [as seen] and a plurality of perforations (13) [holes (Paragraph 0026); and a web of face paper (Paragraph 0025) at least partially covering the body (14) (Paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 9, Smythe Jr teaches in Figures 1 and 4A, the recess (12) defines a folding axis (Paragraph 0031) of the plastic body (14), the plastic body (14) being configured for being bendable (Paragraph 0014) about the longitudinal axis to a 90-degree angle (Paragraph 0014) without relaxing back to an initial flat position (Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 11, Smythe Jr teaches in Figure 4A, the recess (12) is V-shaped, such that a thickness of the plastic body (14) is smallest at a bottom of the V-shape.
Regarding claim 14, Smythe Jr teaches in Figure 1, the perforations (13) are circular in shape and extend through [the flanges of] the plastic body (14).
Regarding claim 17, Smythe Jr teaches the plastic is impact resistant (Paragraph 0008) thus being reversibly deformable.
Regarding claim 19, Smythe Jr teaches in Figure 5, the face paper (16) (Paragraph 0036) has a free end extending past the free edge of the flanges (1).
Regarding claim 20, Smythe Jr teaches in Figure 1, the plastic body (14) is provided in sheet form [laid out flat (Paragraph 0014)].
Claims 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication # 2003/0024188 to Smythe Jr.
Regarding claim 8, Smythe Jr teaches in Figures 4 and 5, a composite [plastic (Paragraph 0052)] corner flashing strip (10) (Paragraph 0052) for finishing a wallboard corner joint (Paragraph 0078), comprising: a plastic (Paragraph 0052) body (12) [semi-rigid member (Paragraph 0052)] including first and second flanges (20) (Paragraph 0052), each flange (20) extending away from a recess (18) [groove (Paragraph 0052)] of the plastic body (12), the first and second flanges (20) having a free edge [as seen], a recess edge [as seen] and a plurality of perforations (187) [holes (Paragraph 0080); and a web of face paper (14) [covering material (Paragraph 0056]) at least partially covering the body (12).
Regarding claim 9, Smythe Jr teaches in Figures 4 and 5, the recess (18) defines a folding axis (Paragraph 0052) of the plastic body (12), the plastic body (12) being configured for being bendable (Paragraph 0052) about the longitudinal axis to a 90-degree angle (Paragraph 0052) without relaxing back to an initial flat position (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 11, Smythe Jr teaches in Figure 5, the recess (18) is V-shaped, such that a thickness of the plastic body (12) is smallest at a bottom of the V-shape.
Regarding claim 14, Smythe Jr teaches in Figure 2, the perforations (187) are circular in shape and extend through [the flange 184 of] the plastic body.
Regarding claim 17, Smythe Jr teaches the plastic is impact resistant (Paragraph 0052) thus being reversibly deformable.
Regarding claim 19, Smythe Jr teaches in Figure 5, the face paper (16) (Paragraphs 0016 and 0052) has a free end extending past the free edge of the flanges (20).
Regarding claim 20, Smythe Jr teaches in Figure 5, the plastic body (12) is provided in sheet form [as seen].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 10,047,524 to Smythe.
Regarding claim 15, Smythe teaches a plurality of perforations but is silent about the diameter of the perforations. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain diameter for the perforations since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain diameter for the perforations since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a diameter solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the diameter of the perforations of the Prior Art would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 16, Smythe teaches in Figure 2, the perforations (8) are provided in a pattern and staggered along a length of the corner finishing strip but is silent about the pattern includes between 6 and 25 holes per square inch. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed pattern of perforations since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a pattern solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the pattern of the Prior Art would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 18, Smythe teaches at least one of the flanges tapers in thickness from the recess to the free edge (Column 2, Lines 29-32) but is silent about the thickness of the flanges at the taper. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed thicknesses of the flanges since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed thickness for the flanges and tapering since the Applicant has not disclosed that such an arrangement solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the flange thickness and tapering of the Prior Art would perform equally well.
Claims 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2006/0059809 to Smythe Jr.
Regarding claim 15, Smythe Jr teaches a plurality of perforations but is silent about the diameter of the perforations. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain diameter for the perforations since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain diameter for the perforations since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a diameter solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the diameter of the perforations of the Prior Art would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 16, Smythe Jr teaches in Figure 1, the perforations (13) are provided in a pattern and staggered along a length of the corner finishing strip but is silent about the pattern includes between 6 and 25 holes per square inch. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed pattern of perforations since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a pattern solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the pattern of the Prior Art would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 18, Smythe Jr teaches at least one of the flanges tapers in thickness from the recess to the free edge (Paragraph 0008) but is silent about the thickness of the flanges at the taper. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed thicknesses of the flanges since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed thickness for the flanges and tapering since the Applicant has not disclosed that such an arrangement solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the flange thickness and tapering of the Prior Art would perform equally well.
Claims 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2003/0024188 to Smythe Jr.
Regarding claim 15, Smythe Jr teaches a plurality of perforations but is silent about the diameter of the perforations. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain diameter for the perforations since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain diameter for the perforations since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a diameter solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the diameter of the perforations of the Prior Art would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 16, Smythe Jr teaches in Figure 22, the perforations (187) are provided in a pattern and staggered along a length of the corner finishing strip but is silent about the pattern includes between 6 and 25 holes per square inch. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed pattern of perforations since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a pattern solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the pattern of the Prior Art would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 18, Smythe Jr teaches at least one of the flanges tapers in thickness from the recess to the free edge (Paragraphs 0015, 0016 and 0052) but is silent about the thickness of the flanges at the taper. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed thicknesses of the flanges since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed thickness for the flanges and tapering since the Applicant has not disclosed that such an arrangement solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the flange thickness and tapering of the Prior Art would perform equally well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights